Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 12, 2002, 10:09 AM   #1
pnz999
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
why? the price drop

why? the price drop. ( i know its a good thing) its because Apple is gonna re-design the its laptop? or just lowering-down the prices for the holiday seasons?

cause the last time, Apple lower thier prices on the G4 Quicksilver tower and in a month later they introducted the new dual (867, 1, 1.25 GHz) G4 mirror tower.
pnz999 is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 10:39 AM   #2
MacBandit
macrumors 604
 
MacBandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
Send a message via AIM to MacBandit
Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by pnz999
why? the price drop. ( i know its a good thing) its because Apple is gonna re-design the its laptop? or just lowering-down the prices for the holiday seasons?

cause the last time, Apple lower thier prices on the G4 Quicksilver tower and in a month later they introducted the new dual (867, 1, 1.25 GHz) G4 mirror tower.

When they lowered the price on the towers they did not update them simultaneously. What would Apple upgrade the Powerbooks to in January? The only thing they could do is a new case. I believe that I am correct in thinking that 1GHz is as fast as the G4 portable chips go at the moment.
__________________
Folding@Home
"Folding FAQ," for more information.
Fold with your PS3. Message me on the Playstation Network ID 'MacBandit'
MacBandit is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 10:57 AM   #3
ftaok
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: East Coast
Re: Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBandit
I believe that I am correct in thinking that 1GHz is as fast as the G4 portable chips go at the moment.
There are no G4 chips designed for laptops. The current G4 chips are the 7445 and the 7455. Both the PowerMac and the PowerBooks use the 7455 chip which is currently being supplied with 1.25ghz ratings.

Apple could use 1.25ghz G4's for the PowerBook if they wanted, but they're holding back for whatever reason. Perhaps it's a cost issue. Perhaps it's a heat issue. Perhaps it's an issue with using a 167mhz bus. Who knows?
ftaok is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 11:10 AM   #4
sparkleytone
macrumors 68020
 
sparkleytone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greensboro, NC
Send a message via AIM to sparkleytone
perhaps its an issue with the fact that they are basically overclocked g4s running at 1.25GHz. the chips are essentially no different than the chips in the previous g4. in fact, they are the same from motorola....whatever apple did to them to work the the motherboard and get them to work at higher clock frequencies is the only real unknown. you wont see 1.25GHz chips in their current iteration in any powerbook.
sparkleytone is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 11:20 AM   #5
Ambrose Chapel
macrumors 65816
 
Ambrose Chapel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Massachusetts
it's the economy, ...

I think it's simply a response to a bad economy and particularly bad PC sales. Look how Dell was able to sell so many wintel boxes - cutting price. I don't think you should read into it anything about quick revisions.
Ambrose Chapel is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 11:48 AM   #6
ftaok
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: East Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by sparkleytone
perhaps its an issue with the fact that they are basically overclocked g4s running at 1.25GHz. the chips are essentially no different than the chips in the previous g4. in fact, they are the same from motorola....whatever apple did to them to work the the motherboard and get them to work at higher clock frequencies is the only real unknown. you wont see 1.25GHz chips in their current iteration in any powerbook.
Spark,

I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be. Do you really think that Motorola would let Apple sell chips rated for 1.0 ghz as "overclocked" 1.25ghz chips? Of course not. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Plus, Apple wouldn't do something that stupid.

The 1.25ghz G4 are rated at 1.25ghz, therefore they are 1.25ghz chips. Not overclocked 1ghz chips. Period.

I think the issue lies with Apple. Why can't they put in a 167mhz bus into the TiBook? Seems like an easy enough task.

In my opinion, Apple is purposely crippling the TiBook so that the PowerMac looks better on paper. Apple has a history of doing this. Look at the original white iBooks. They have 66mhz busses in them even though 100mhz busses would have worked just fine. It would not have added to the cost of the machine, but Apple didn't want the specs of the iBook to be too good, or many consumers would have opted for an iBook over a TiBook.

Anyways, I'm sorry that I took the thread off topic.
ftaok is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 01:13 PM   #7
Hemingray
macrumors 68030
 
Hemingray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ha ha haaa!
Quote:
Originally posted by ftaok
In my opinion, Apple is purposely crippling the TiBook so that the PowerMac looks better on paper. Apple has a history of doing this. Look at the original white iBooks. They have 66mhz busses in them even though 100mhz busses would have worked just fine. It would not have added to the cost of the machine, but Apple didn't want the specs of the iBook to be too good, or many consumers would have opted for an iBook over a TiBook.
I think that is a very real issue here. That's one of the reasons why iBooks don't have a G4 yet. Quite honestly, it makes me mad. But it's not as much Apple's fault as Motorola's. But this time next year I see light at the end of the tunnel.
Hemingray is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 01:22 PM   #8
ftaok
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: East Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by Hemingray
I think that is a very real issue here. That's one of the reasons why iBooks don't have a G4 yet. Quite honestly, it makes me mad. But it's not as much Apple's fault as Motorola's. But this time next year I see light at the end of the tunnel.
I hear what you're saying, but I totally disagree. You can blame Moto all you want, but in the end, it's Apple's responsibility. No one is forcing Apple to use Moto chips. If they wanted, they could put the 1.2ghz G3 Sahara chips into every Mac. The reason they don't is because the G4 is better.

Apple made a choice to go with the PPC chip. Moto didn't force them to do it. Apple could have hitched their wagon to another architecture, but they didn't. It's not Moto's fault.

BTW, if Apple wanted Moto to get the lead out of their butts, maybe they should try selling more computers. Moto isn't making enough money off of Apple to justify pouring cubic-dollars into R&D. Moto's focus for the PPC line has shifted away from the desktop market towards the embedded market because that's where they're moving the most product.
ftaok is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 02:14 PM   #9
Hemingray
macrumors 68030
 
Hemingray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ha ha haaa!
Quote:
Originally posted by ftaok
BTW, if Apple wanted Moto to get the lead out of their butts, maybe they should try selling more computers. Moto isn't making enough money off of Apple to justify pouring cubic-dollars into R&D. Moto's focus for the PPC line has shifted away from the desktop market towards the embedded market because that's where they're moving the most product.
Classic Catch-22 situation. Apple needs more powerful/higher clocking chips in order to woo more people over to the Mac platform, but Motorola isn't as serious about creating more powerful/higher clocking chips for the Mac because Apple doesn't have that much of the computer market.

Someone needed to take the initiative here, which Apple did, marketing their software, "digital hub", iPod, and whatnot. You haven't seen them brag about a Mac's speed since the introduction of the G4 in 1999. And that's why this time next year, IBM will be bringing us back into the big competition.
Hemingray is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 03:41 PM   #10
iJon
macrumors 604
 
iJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by pnz999
why? the price drop. ( i know its a good thing) its because Apple is gonna re-design the its laptop? or just lowering-down the prices for the holiday seasons?

cause the last time, Apple lower thier prices on the G4 Quicksilver tower and in a month later they introducted the new dual (867, 1, 1.25 GHz) G4 mirror tower.
If you notice on the specs. Apple left the old 16mb video card and things like that in there. its basically an ibook without the latest and greatest like the top of the line ibooks. this i good for someone who just wants to type, they can lower the price to 3 figures and catch the eye of many people. same with the low end powerbook, lower video card, which i think was a bad idea because since you are paying so much for a powerbook anyways i feel you should get he 64mb card anyways. but pricecuts overall on both models should help sales and make me more money, hehe.

iJon
iJon is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 04:45 PM   #11
arn
macrumors god
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Send a message via AIM to arn
Quote:
Originally posted by sparkleytone
perhaps its an issue with the fact that they are basically overclocked g4s running at 1.25GHz. the chips are essentially no different than the chips in the previous g4. in fact, they are the same from motorola....whatever apple did to them to work the the motherboard and get them to work at higher clock frequencies is the only real unknown.
this is all baseless speculation

The chips are rated at 1.25GHz. Go find yourself a Dual 1.25ghz machine, pull off the heatsink and note the rating etched on the chip.

arn
arn is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 04:56 PM   #12
MacCoaster
macrumors 6502a
 
MacCoaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Washington, DC / Rochester, NY / Lexington, NC
Send a message via AIM to MacCoaster
Quote:
Originally posted by ftaok
I think the issue lies with Apple. Why can't they put in a 167mhz bus into the TiBook? Seems like an easy enough task.
So you're an engineer undertaking the task? It's not like you can just drop it in. It takes months of engineering work, weeks of testing/debugging work, etc.

It's not as easy as it looks.
__________________
The Mac Coaster
Quad Core Q6600 PC, 23" Apple Cinema HD LCD, White MacBook C2D 2.16 GHz, Athlon64 PC, AthlonXP PC, iPod photo 60 GB
MacCoaster is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 04:58 PM   #13
MacBandit
macrumors 604
 
MacBandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
Send a message via AIM to MacBandit
Re: Re: Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by ftaok
There are no G4 chips designed for laptops. The current G4 chips are the 7445 and the 7455. Both the PowerMac and the PowerBooks use the 7455 chip which is currently being supplied with 1.25ghz ratings.

Apple could use 1.25ghz G4's for the PowerBook if they wanted, but they're holding back for whatever reason. Perhaps it's a cost issue. Perhaps it's a heat issue. Perhaps it's an issue with using a 167mhz bus. Who knows?

Well up until the new powerbooks came out they were using the PPC7451. I checked on what you said and I believe you are correct in saying that they are using the PPC7455 now. The PPC7451 had a lower powerconsumption then the PPC7455 and that is why it was used up until now.
__________________
Folding@Home
"Folding FAQ," for more information.
Fold with your PS3. Message me on the Playstation Network ID 'MacBandit'
MacBandit is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 05:35 PM   #14
aasmund
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Trondheim
I will bet an iPod with anyone that iBooks will get G4 before PowerBook get's something better. The First Day Apple can, they will put a g4 into the eyeBook, Look at what they did with the iMac! The key to differentiation between i and Power will be different market segments, not architecture. I think g4 iBooks with 13'3 inch screen are very likely. Perhaps in colors.
aasmund is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 06:44 PM   #15
solvs
macrumors 601
 
solvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: LaLaLand, CA
Quote:
Originally posted by sparkleytone
perhaps its an issue with the fact that they are basically overclocked g4s running at 1.25GHz. the chips are essentially no different than the chips in the previous g4. in fact, they are the same from motorola....whatever apple did to them to work the the motherboard and get them to work at higher clock frequencies is the only real unknown. you wont see 1.25GHz chips in their current iteration in any powerbook.
As many other have pointed out, the 1.25 is not overclocked. The G4 was capable of a 166.67 FSB long before Apple implemented it. And if you look really close, the 1.25 G4 says on it that it's a 7455A clocked at 1.25 GHz. This information is etched on the chip itself. The definition of overclocking is to "over-clock" a chip beyond it's rated speed. Since Motorola and Apple manufacture the Dual 1.25 GHz G4 towers, by definition it's not overclocked.

Besides, it would be illegal, unless they said something (even then).
__________________
True love never dies
The only thing more dangerous than a woman scorned, is a man with nothing left to lose...
solvs is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 07:33 PM   #16
ftaok
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: East Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCoaster
So you're an engineer undertaking the task? It's not like you can just drop it in. It takes months of engineering work, weeks of testing/debugging work, etc.

It's not as easy as it looks.
MacCoaster,

OK, you got me. I'm not a computer (or electrical) engineer. But what I do know is that Apple has the ability to design a motherboard capable of 167mhz for the PowerMac. So they've known since well before August (was that when the mirrorMacs came out) that a 167mhz bus was possible for the G4. So why haven't they implemented it on the TiBook?

I'll give you that it takes months of engineering and weeks of testing to update something like the system bus. My question is why didn't Apple design a 167mhz bus for the TiBook simultaneously with the MirrorMacs? All I'm saying is that it's entirely possible for Apple to be using 1.25ghz G4s in the TiBook, but they choose not to. I believe that it's because they want to keep a "numbers" gap between the PowerBook and the PowerMac.

I also speculate that perhaps the TiBook enclosure is too tight to accomodate the extra heat that the 1.25ghz chip puts out, but that's hardly Moto's fault. Moto's G4 chips are extremely cool when compared to chips of comparable performance.
ftaok is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 07:39 PM   #17
ftaok
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: East Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBandit
Well up until the new powerbooks came out they were using the PPC7451. I checked on what you said and I believe you are correct in saying that they are using the PPC7455 now. The PPC7451 had a lower powerconsumption then the PPC7455 and that is why it was used up until now.
Actually, Apple has been using the 7455 since the introduction of the DVI TiBook. These are the 667 and 800 models. You can tell by looking at the L3 cache as the 7455 has up to 2MB. I believe the 7451 maxes out at 512 kB (not sure on this). So Apple has been using the 7455 for the TiBook for well over 6 month (again, not sure when the DVI TiBooks were intro'd.)
ftaok is offline   0
Old Nov 12, 2002, 09:14 PM   #18
MacBandit
macrumors 604
 
MacBandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
Send a message via AIM to MacBandit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by ftaok
Actually, Apple has been using the 7455 since the introduction of the DVI TiBook. These are the 667 and 800 models. You can tell by looking at the L3 cache as the 7455 has up to 2MB. I believe the 7451 maxes out at 512 kB (not sure on this). So Apple has been using the 7455 for the TiBook for well over 6 month (again, not sure when the DVI TiBooks were intro'd.)

Here is where i got my info.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...4_800_dvi.html

I know very well that it could be mistaken so if anyone knows the real answer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong I will not take offense. Much.
__________________
Folding@Home
"Folding FAQ," for more information.
Fold with your PS3. Message me on the Playstation Network ID 'MacBandit'
MacBandit is offline   0
Old Nov 13, 2002, 03:03 AM   #19
daveg5
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Re: Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by iJon


If you notice on the specs. Apple left the old 16mb video card and things like that in there. its basically an ibook without the latest and greatest like the top of the line ibooks. this i good for someone who just wants to type, they can lower the price to 3 figures and catch the eye of many people. same with the low end powerbook, lower video card, which i think was a bad idea because since you are paying so much for a powerbook anyways i feel you should get he 64mb card anyways. but pricecuts overall on both models should help sales and make me more money, hehe.

iJon
the low /high video card concept is terrible and may be a first for ibook/ powerbooks. ibooks should be 32mb powerbooks 64 mb. how much more money would it cost $25-$50, and that would be offset by having the same components in each machine.
why did not apple include the available and cheap 1GHZ g3 (or 1.2 GHZ) in the top model ibook , ibooks have had equal and greater MHZ speed then the powerbooks before and the g4 would be faster at all altivec programs although the 800MHZ Ibook benchmarks better at some non altivec things.
And have you seen the lowend ibook !! Boy does it look super cheap, unfinished and not fully painted. anyway the price cuts were good but charge $50-$100 more and fully paint the think and give it a minimum dvd nowadays and 32MB vid. and there is no reason now that every mac cant be 1GHZ g3 or g4 or better. the next imacs/emacs better be 1GHZ and higher after a full years wait, 1 mb l3 cache, usb2 for scanners with drivers. etc. that would only equal a 30% increase . just think 800mhz g4 no l3 cache in 2003.
get with it Apple!!
I am wait for my 1.5 powerbook before i pay $3000 or dual 1GHZ powerbook. hopefully before july.
daveg5 is offline   0
Old Nov 13, 2002, 05:57 AM   #20
ftaok
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: East Coast
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBandit
Here is where i got my info.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...4_800_dvi.html

I know very well that it could be mistaken so if anyone knows the real answer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong I will not take offense. Much.
MacBandit,

Your link was very interesting. I went to Moto's website and it seems that the 7451 does indeed have a L3 cache and the chip itself does go up to 867mhz. So I guess you are correct.

I wonder where I got the notion that the DVI PowerBooks had the 7455. I think I might have read it in a post and took it as gospel. I should know better than that.

EDIT - I went and found some other links and it seems that the DVI TiBooks may indeed have 7455's. Here's the link . I guess we'll have to wait for someone to comfirm which chip was used for the 667/800 TiBooks.

Last edited by ftaok; Nov 13, 2002 at 08:37 AM.
ftaok is offline   0
Old Nov 13, 2002, 09:59 AM   #21
MacBandit
macrumors 604
 
MacBandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
Send a message via AIM to MacBandit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why? the price drop

Quote:
Originally posted by ftaok
MacBandit,

Your link was very interesting. I went to Moto's website and it seems that the 7451 does indeed have a L3 cache and the chip itself does go up to 867mhz. So I guess you are correct.

I wonder where I got the notion that the DVI PowerBooks had the 7455. I think I might have read it in a post and took it as gospel. I should know better than that.

EDIT - I went and found some other links and it seems that the DVI TiBooks may indeed have 7455's. Here's the link . I guess we'll have to wait for someone to comfirm which chip was used for the 667/800 TiBooks.

XLR8YourMac.com also lists it as a 7455. So at the moment I'm thinking your right. If someone owns one of these machines please run a profile on it and let us know.
__________________
Folding@Home
"Folding FAQ," for more information.
Fold with your PS3. Message me on the Playstation Network ID 'MacBandit'
MacBandit is offline   0
Old Nov 13, 2002, 10:51 AM   #22
Bradcoe
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northeast U.S.
another reason 167bus not in tibook

A 167Mhz bus causes everything running on it to run hotter. DDR runs hotter than SDRAM. Increasing the 133Mhz bus by 25% to 167Mhz will cause an overall heat increase, possibly making the TiBook too hot and too much of a power drain on the battery, in Apples eyes. Just a thought.
Bradcoe is offline   0
Old Nov 13, 2002, 10:57 AM   #23
ftaok
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: East Coast
Re: another reason 167bus not in tibook

Quote:
Originally posted by Bradcoe
A 167Mhz bus causes everything running on it to run hotter. DDR runs hotter than SDRAM. Increasing the 133Mhz bus by 25% to 167Mhz will cause an overall heat increase, possibly making the TiBook too hot and too much of a power drain on the battery, in Apples eyes. Just a thought.
Bradcoe,

I did mention that as a possible reason that the 1.25ghz G4s aren't being used in the TiBook. But you can't blame Motorola for that. Apple designed the TiBook with very little in the way of heat removal.

NOTE - I do realize that you did not blame Moto for anything in this thread. Somehow, the thread moved to a "anti-Moto" tone and I tried to set it straight.
ftaok is offline   0
Old Nov 13, 2002, 11:04 AM   #24
Catfish_Man
macrumors 68030
 
Catfish_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Send a message via AIM to Catfish_Man
Actually...

Quote:
Originally posted by ftaok
I hear what you're saying, but I totally disagree. You can blame Moto all you want, but in the end, it's Apple's responsibility. No one is forcing Apple to use Moto chips. If they wanted, they could put the 1.2ghz G3 Sahara chips into every Mac. The reason they don't is because the G4 is better.

Apple made a choice to go with the PPC chip. Moto didn't force them to do it. Apple could have hitched their wagon to another architecture, but they didn't. It's not Moto's fault.

BTW, if Apple wanted Moto to get the lead out of their butts, maybe they should try selling more computers. Moto isn't making enough money off of Apple to justify pouring cubic-dollars into R&D. Moto's focus for the PPC line has shifted away from the desktop market towards the embedded market because that's where they're moving the most product.
...Sahara (the 750fx) only goes up to 1GHz, so they could NOT use "1.2GHz Saharas".
Catfish_Man is offline   0
Old Nov 13, 2002, 11:37 AM   #25
Hemingray
macrumors 68030
 
Hemingray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ha ha haaa!
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBandit



XLR8YourMac.com also lists it as a 7455. So at the moment I'm thinking your right. If someone owns one of these machines please run a profile on it and let us know.
Everymac.com has been known to be wrong on more than one occassion, so I personally no longer wield their specs as gospel...
Hemingray is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much do you think LG G2 price will drop? angelica314 Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 4 Jan 3, 2014 01:19 AM
Price Drop???? sclawis300 Mac mini 3 Oct 23, 2012 04:42 PM
price drop much?? Fabricman112 MacBook Pro 11 Sep 10, 2012 03:02 PM
How much of a price drop when refresh comes out? ChevyHD iMac 0 Jun 12, 2012 05:01 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC